lxxvii24

hmmm you guysve got wuite a lot down ur sleeves... i start by sayin am a fan of generating electricity from gravity. but lyk a friend stated eaerlier, G is small making the force generated small and also the amount of gravity depends on the forcees in connection which is m1 and m2.... no one seem to be makin mention of the masses.... if we talk off massive sizes then comes the question of gravity being significant.... according to newton's definition gravity exists btw any two particles.... tiny masses tiny impact

but for the sake of heavens how does the shape of infinity equates the shape of the universe........ 'm not condemin it, but i think we need to apply caution

hello guys... 'm yet to check up the hyperlink..... but i feel any discussion which involves infinity, caution should be applied so that we donn't bastardise some fixed rules

The big bang theory has always captured my fancy. If we state that a small pocket exploded and then came tthe universe. Now , the quewstion of SPACE AND TIME. I think space has always existed and then comes time. Concernin preBB wat trigered it then, we humans dont take things hook line and sinker, we always dwell on the origiin of things , i just dont know y we refused to look at things that way any longer.

I kind of concur, it is said that the earth's gravitational field attracts things to its centre. So this sphere should act in like manners. Concernin the charges, Gauss's applies, but it is not that there isnt a charge witin the sphere.

Vortex is a term used to describe the event that happens when u stir up water in a bucket. Notice hw it spirals. I hope u get this time.

Actually, i dont really know if it is an acronym. BUt i do know the concept and hw it works.

Cool thought, XYPH. I believe it is Einstein that said Large bodies curve space. It depends on hw big ur hollow sphere is. I think i agree wit the fact that if it is one massive sphere it should be able to form a form of magnetic vortex. THis i believe in turn would generate the gravitational pull in the sphere. As per Gauss' law sayin that the charge inside the sphere is zero, i agree but it refers to the net charge not that there is nt a charge in the sphere.

Can the understanding of VORTEX help solve the space-time construct? Vortex as used here is that of trans-dimensional gateway. I propose it to be some of singularity that would help bend space and time or better still SHRINK space and time. ANd such passing thru it would give man another means of provin to be masters iof the universe.

 In fact, quantum tunneling has been known to permit superluminal communication, for some decades. So wat the hell is this “There are many examples of FTL but all of them (that I've heard) claim information can never be sent using them.” Posted by CanadaAotS.

 Can anyone pls help falsify, if u can this statement by Bearden … A pseudo-longitudinal EM wave has finite energy and finite velocity, but its velocity may be less than or greater than the velocity of light in free space. When it’s subliminal, it’s called an “EM particle”. Nimtz and his colleagues have also transmitted Mozart’s 40th symphony down a waveguide at speed 4.7c, and clearly listened to it on the other end. This blows the tar out of the old saw that “information cannot be transmitted superluminally”

 Is it possible to understand the physical world without mathematics - yes.Posted by Saint. My answer is no. What really is mathematics, wat does maths deal with, wat does it use as its constant, variables,…… My thinking is that Maths models the world, e.g real nos model the physical world, and there on. Who has ever wondered y 0 and infinity are the most controversial nos in the world. Well I think the science community should start thinking about some universal forces in control. Y is all mathematical equations( this includes physics) equated to the no. ZERO. Who can answer that. Also, does anyone here have a great understanding of complex nos?

I would want to thank Klatu particularly for being the first person to see things my way.

my only contributioon is that , kepler's third law established this T^2 = k*R^3, tthat is all.

Good question, but i think i was thought in elementary skool that mass is the quantity of matter in a a body. BUt , i know that most of us know this definition, so then what is matter. i think that is the new question?

you see i have a scale for that already, matter from energy and matter from waves or vice versa. May i remind us that, everytime,the science community debunks a theory which it doesnt understand, and this trend continues. 200 years ago, i guess no body believed that man could get to the moon. So let us leave the discussion with an open end. Let us not shut it out completely. I think, the reason all this things arent known yet is that we are not well equipped for it yet. Take travellin faster than sound as aan instance at a point is was impossible, but now we know that it is possible. I think the answer to all this lies in our understanding of negativce masses. THis is y i use the quote below.

well u see, i think the theory u are quoting says light could be a PARTICLE or A WAVE but cant be both at the same time. It is like two sides of a coin, both sides cant exit in the same frame.

See, i have always believed it is possible to attain negative mass, and i have a theory .BUt i am waitin for the right time to release it. I m still putting thru the test.

See, i have always believed it is possible to attain negative mass, and i have a theory .BUt i am waitin for the right time to release it. I m still putting thru the test.

Bodies travellin at the speed of light like photons have always been said to be massless, so it suffices for me to conclude that travellin at the speed of light could only be possible if one could attain 0 mass. So wat then is mass? What is the mass of a wave. If Einstein converted mass into energy, couldnt mass be converted to waves. Waves dont have weight, so y cant mass be transformed in to a wave, and solve our problems.

I am actually here to ask a question, i have been wondering, Einstein said if there are two brothers ( twins), and one travels to a distant planet at some speed 2ce that of light, lets say it takes him 2mins( to the traveller), to those on earth he travelled for 5o years, by the time he comes bac he would have aged by 2 mins while his brother on earth would have aged by 50 years. So now, this is my question, is agein a function of TIME

Has anybody here heard of a the GRAVITY DRIVE. What is the shortest distance betwwen any two points? Answer = 0. THe shortest distance between any two points is 0 , if u fold it together. My question is , is it possible to create a black through a ship travels through, there by travelling faster than light.

is it possible to model a liquid flow as a DNA molecule. Is it possible to generate the double helix nature of a DNA molecule in a liquid

i think we are gradually losing the moon. centripetal forces, i guess

hw can u say say we put out more energy than the sun, do u mean to tell me that the net entropy for earth is more than that of the sun. Brother i think that is wrong estimation, the sun is still putting out enough energy. Concerning the fact whether or not we are losing energy i think there is a balance of some sought , i cant really lay hands on it. but the effect could be seen with us creating more green house gases and the earth getting warmer. Note i said our gases + sun's energy which proves too much...